Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., has died at age 77.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama bill up for “costly” vote
The Senate will vote as soon as today on a bill that, if passed, would place a global tax on the United States costing $845 billion over 13 years. The “Global Poverty Act,” which is sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, would commit the United States to spending 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid.
The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”
Thus far, the media have been remarkably silent about this legislation. Why?
back to top39 Comments to “Obama bill up for “costly” vote”
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what the other developed nations are doing? How much they plan to contribute?
Report comment to moderator
Kristin: … The “Global Poverty Act,” which is sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama, would commit the United States to spending 0.7 percent of its gross national product on foreign aid.
… Thus far, the media have been remarkably silent about this legislation. Why?
Frank: Umm, would these be the same media that have been remarkably — culpably –silent about the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul, the only candidate to take a stand against all foeign aid as being expensive, to say nothing of unconstitutional? Those media?
“But,” declared his critics, “he’s a kook! He wants to cut off aid to Israel!” [Gasp!]
Well, is taking money from Americans and sending it to foreign countries expensive and unconstitutional or not?
Is redistribution of wealth evil — after all, I think we can all agree that theft is evil — or not?
Or is it only evil when the money goes to “bad” countries?
Report comment to moderator
The Senate will vote as soon as today on a bill that, if passed, would place a global tax on the United States costing $845 billion over 13 years.
The Iraq war is costing about $6 billion a month. At that rate, it would hit $845 billion in about 11 years. A scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute estimates that before it’s over it could cost $1 trillion.
I’m betting most of the Christians who post on this thread will not blink at the cost of the war but will insist any program to provide aid to the world’s poor is “socialism.”
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (1): Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what the other developed nations are doing? How much they plan to contribute?
Frank: I know you probably didn’t intend it this way, but that question amounts to nothing more than a mere distraction.
When you get mugged, do you ask the mugger, “But have you mugged any other victims, and if so, how much did you get from them?”
And if so, NJ, would you feel better about your mugging if he answered, “Oh, dozens. And I got way more from them … “?NJ?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer:
Remember that free rice game that was posted a few weeks back @ free rice . com , You can find out how other nations are doing by clicking here:
http://www.poverty.com/internationalaid.html
Report comment to moderator
So Frank (#4),
Are you saying the Third World is mugging us? I know some folks who would agree with that!
Report comment to moderator
Nobody remembers that we lost Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty. If the third world governments were to eleminate corruption and create honest free markets, poverty would be eleminated almost immediately.
Report comment to moderator
RRBar (6): Are you saying the Third World is mugging us?
Frank: No. Worse.
Our nation’s own leaders are mugging us. Witness Barack Obama — but he’s just one of 500-odd. (And that’s just the Legislative branch!)
And then giving the loot to the third, second and first world.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – I recall seeing that some other countries are well above the US’s PERCENTAGE of GNP given as foriegn aid. But no one is close to the amount of US foriegn aid, and remember that this is only the country’s giving. The people in the US give a lot of their money voluntarily to foriegn charitiable causes – which is how we ought to leave it.
Report comment to moderator
And the media’s silence on this is part of their deliberate non-reporting of anything that mught hinder the chances of the Democrats taking the presidency in teh upcoming election.
Report comment to moderator
I was right, and KRM throws in anti-media paranoia to boot.
Report comment to moderator
Poverty cannot be resolved by politicians voting for bills, especially global poverty. That’s a political pipe dream rising from our tendency to worship and magnify political power.
SteveG, if I thought for a second that such measures and expenditures actually had a meaningful impact on the problem of real-life poverty, I would support this at twice the cost. But they don’t.
Sometimes it even does unnecessary harm to create presumptions of dependency. That breaks down initiative.
I am not saying that all foreign aid has no value. But I am saying the poverty solving movite is pretentious and off-base. We often simply enrich the wrong people and fool ourselves into feeling good about ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
Great Marxist stuff – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Redistribute the world’s wealth.
Report comment to moderator
I’d like to see one of you hawks address Frank’s point in #2. What, to your mind, is the difference that makes it acceptable to give foreign aid to Israel but unacceptable to give foreign aid to Somalia?
A liberal friend of mind lent Confessions of an Economic Hit Man to me over the Christmas season. Some of it strikes me as pure fantasy, but the parts of it that I was able to confirm are staggering. Foreign poverty aid, all too often, is just American corporate welfare. We tie aid money to a requirement that foreign governments hire American firms (like KBR/Halliburton) to build in the countries. The projects that get built usually enrich a few very wealthy people in the target country, but do nothing (or even harm) the average citizen.
So Congress takes money from the American middle class, flat out gives it to Halliburton (via some third world nation) to build a dam in said nation. The dam is owned and controlled by a wealthy family, produces electricity that they sell at rates higher than most people can afford, and dries up the river off which thousands of poor farmers had been subsisting. The final goal? Now the US has a wealthy and powerful family that owes us a lot of money and is beholden to us for its success. We call them our “ally,” turn a blind eye to their abuses, and call in favors when we want them.
Report comment to moderator
Ok… I just read the bill. First of all, it just demands that the president take action and lay out a strategy for accomplishing some goals. It does not mention .7 of the GNP, 845 Billion or whatever. It mentions that whatever strategy gets written, it should be shown (among other things) to further the UN Millenium Development Goal of reducing (by one-half) the world population who live on less than $1 a day.
Now… that does not sound like it commits us whole-heartedly to the requirements of the UN’s effort. It sounds like the strategy needs to be in line with it. Whether this passes or not, it sounds like the ultimate results of this bill will totally depend on who is the next POTUS and what the standards for acceptance of the strategies are…. do I read that right?
Report comment to moderator
Well, I just wanted to know, innocently enough, what the others were doing, and I’ve been given information to find out. I will avail myself of those sites.
That said, I’m not opposed to all foreign aid. We should be good “neighbors.” Let’s say we couldn’t grow corn, but Country A does. Country A has no ability to defend itself from Country B which also wants the corn. Do I let Country B overrun Country A, take the corn and leave me high and dry when a modest “investment” would keep Country B at bay? Probably not.
I think I will join KRM and Joel Mark on this one. There’s too much corruption in foreign governments, and I think we would be called the evil imperialists if we said we wanted to follow the money.
Report comment to moderator
May I also have an opinion on this part of the attached article: “In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, ….”
I opposed the International Criminal Court Treaty. I don’t think we shouls subject our soldiers to international law.
Report comment to moderator
Well, since our soldiers and president don’t seem to be subject to any domestic laws, I’m perfectly happy to have them subject to international law. Someone must hold them accountable.
Report comment to moderator
So we get the news about Obama’s big spending bill, but we ignore Uncle Georgies hush hush double powie? Give me a break!
George Bush wants us to spend a whole boatload of money ($550 million) helping Mexico keep the South American “immigrants” from crossing their southern border. The reason you haven’t heard about this? The state department says that Mexico is sensitive about “incursions” and “sovereignty”. NO kidding. Still, is that any reason to keep the Merida Initiative quiet?
And just why does the State Department give a rats patootie about that? It’d be better if they were more concered about:
A) the amount of money we’re about to spend on a foreign country that couldn’t give a flip about
B) our sovereignty and
C) incursions on our borders!
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/oct/93800.htm
Report comment to moderator
Most Americans will think that 0.7% of GNP represents a cut in foreign aid by the most profligately generous nation in history. Obama easily could get away with declaring, “For far too long, Americans have been sending a large share of their hard-earned money to foreign aid. It’s now time for us to spend some of our money at home. From now on, America will spend 0.7% of GNP for foreign aid and not a penny more!
Report comment to moderator
DCL – THe UN is a grievance theater for despotic regimes.
If you think Bush & Co. are bad, you would be absolutely howling when the real depots of the UN take over.
Report comment to moderator
#18 DC Lawyer – You would trade our national sovereignty away and subject our citizens to international laws, many of which are contrary to our own laws – just for the sake of accountability? Our soldiers are being asked to do a job that many people in this country are loth to do, much of it in a life and death situation. Our soldiers are accountable. The are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice – a stricter code of law than United States civil law. You have made a sweeping generalization. Would you care to cite instances of our soldiers not being subject to any domestic laws?
Report comment to moderator
DCL, when you sign up and go to Iraq or some such place — assuming you can shoot straight and survive — then you can hand yourself over to the Hague. I don’t think if the chips were down you’d want anything but an American court.
I would never betray one of our soldiers like than and hang them out to dry. See Klasko’s post.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – I don’t like the cost of war (any of them – I’m from a long line of military men with a number of disabled bets in the family(, but the costs of war are periodically necessary to protect us from the “bad guys” so I reluctantly accept them.
Wasting a huge sum on UN directed foriegn aid (which goes more to theft and corruption by “bad guys” than to any good work) – and drying up the funds which might otherwise be willingly donated to good charitable work – is of no benefit to anyone (except the aforementioned “bad guys”).
Media paranoia? Not al all, the media is overwhelming far left and Obama is their current darling poolitician being given a complete pass on any real scrutiny. It isn’t paranoia if they’re really out to get you, then it is just a recognition of reality.
Report comment to moderator
And yet, NJL, you have no trouble with rendition, indeterminate detention without charge or benefit of counsel, flagrant use of hearsay, and, of course, the death penalty for combatants opposed to us???
Tell me how the Hague Court could possibly be any worse than that.
As I understand it, the Hague Court’s jurists are all trained and at least presumably free from command influence, as opposed to the military officers proposed to try the Guantanamo detainees.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – 1
There’s something very wrong with this picture.
Obama can’t wait to start his GLOBAL world power, ….. he’s even willing to jump the gun, although he isn’t President.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – If our current opponents would fight in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, they would get full treatment under them (as it is, we largely give them such benefits).
Our current opponents, of course, do not give our people any benefit under the Geneva Conventions (our prior opponents have all ignored, or largely ignored, them too).
The Hague Court will be a typical international fiasco. It will persecute Israel and the West, while turning a totally bind eye to the greater abuses of the despotic Third World regimes. And that would be worse than our conduct.
Arcadia, I would say that a society that apsires to high standards (like the West) must temper its aspirations to the reality of our opponents. We can not operate at too high a level above them, lest their willingness to fight dirty cause us to be killed (and the low aspirations of the opposition be imposed upon all the survivors – a net large loss).
Report comment to moderator
This is the spookiest statement from the article:
Egads – it is worse than watching sausage being made.
Report comment to moderator
Monday, January 14, 2008 7:49 PM
Newsmax.com
By: Ronald Kessler
“Barack Obama’s longtime minister, mentor, and sounding board has been a key supporter of Louis Farrakhan and last month honored the Nation of Islam leader for lifetime achievement.
Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews, whites, America, and homosexuals. He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
“Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [the Black Entertainment Network]?” Farrakhan said in a speech on Nov. 11, 2007. “Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry, and television. And they make us look like we’re the murderers; we look like we’re the gangsters, but we’re punk stuff.”
“The month after that speech, Obama’s minister and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, honored Farrakhan at a gala, bestowing on him its Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award.”
Obama has said he found religion through Wright in the 1980s and consulted him before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.
In the November/December issue of his church’s magazine, Trumpet, Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan, whom he helped in organizing the Million Man March in Washington in 1995. Wright lauded Farrakhan as one of the giants of the African-American religious experience in the 20th and 21st centuries.”
Please read the rest of this article, very enlightening!
Report comment to moderator
KRM: Media paranoia? Not al all, the media is overwhelming far left and Obama is their current darling poolitician being given a complete pass on any real scrutiny. It isn’t paranoia if they’re really out to get you, then it is just a recognition of reality.
It’s amusing how fervently conservatives hold on to this myth.
Report comment to moderator
Travis at #28: I’m not prepared to take AIM’s word for that, but I can note that the PATRIOT Act passed for much the same reason.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia writes to me:
“And yet, NJL, you have no trouble with rendition, indeterminate detention without charge or benefit of counsel, flagrant use of hearsay, and, of course, the death penalty for combatants opposed to us???”
My initial reaction was: Another battle with Arcadia! Good Grief! But here goes.
I wrote about “my,” “our” soldiers. I won’t change my views on subjecting them to the international criminal court.
How did you conclude that I have “no trouble” as you stated in the above quote? I know that I have posted regarding the death penalty in general and that I waffle on it. I have not made a comment on rendition, or any of the other items you mention. How do you know whether I am troubled or not? Aren’t you being just a tad presumptuous?
The Hague jurists are not American jurists. They will not apply our Constitution to Americans who are under the command of the American military, (including the Commander in Chief). As far as I am concerned, they don’t have jurisdiction. If you don’t have jurisdiction, you don’t hear the case.
I took a minute to email GWB to veto the bill, especially if it contains the international court language should it be placed before him for signature.
I join KRM’s response to you in post No. 27 and add that I am extremely happy that no American soldier will be required to follow you into battle.
(Yes, Travis, it’s spooky and scary.)
Report comment to moderator
The traditional caveat regarding private giving was already raised in this thread but should be disregarded. The 0.7% monitors only gov’t spending and not NGOs or private giving; this is the measuring stick.
JJF’s point on conditional aid is well taken. Almost all US aid has conditions attached which enrich private US corporations and their third world proxies. Although other countries engage in similar hypocrisies, I doubt to the same extreme as the US which has also included military aid as foreign aid.
The International Criminal Court has been fairly successful in prosecuting various combatants in ex-Yugoslavia and a few West Africa despots. No Isrealis have been charged nor has Bush, although Bush and friends face charges in Belgium and Germany. Any institution which increases accountability where there is none should be seen as a good idea.
The best line Kuscinch managed to give in the debates (which gave him little opportunity to speak) is where he justified his vote against the Patriot Act by noting he was the only one to read and thus the only one to vote against it.
KRM — The Germans largely adhered to the Geneva Convention when dealing with the western allies but not with Russia. Not surprising the western allies followed the Geneva convention and the Russians did not. If you follow the Geneva convention chances increase your opponent will also follow. And yes I know there were exceptions for example by 1944 the Germans treated airmen not as POWs but as war criminals since they bombed civilian areas and hence many were shot.
As for media silence. Its not a conspiracy or bias, the issue’s boring — covering Brittany, Paris et al is far more titillating.
Report comment to moderator
How much of our economy have we wasted in Iraq?
Report comment to moderator
The silence from DC Lawyer to the question I posed hours ago is deafening…
Report comment to moderator
Scroop had the right of it. Most Americans don’t realize that our entire foreign affairs budget (minus the military) is less than one percent of the budget. On foreign aid our budget percentage is .17 percent. This is part of the reason that nation building on Iraq has fallen on the military as it has ample funding.
KRM since when does the media, msm or otherwise expend energy reporting on foreign aid?
Corruption is of course a problem and the USG does fund good governance, anti-corruption measures, but with fairly small sums comparatively and these programs are not too popular, as you can imagine, with many third world leaders.
Why spend foreign aid? Well, in the past couple of years China has spent 11.2 billion on infrastructure improvements in Africa. The EU as a whole outspends us. As crass as it may sound foreign assistance builds good will and the U.S. kind of needs that. In addition much US foreign aid is funneled through US NGOS and companies, as noted above by JJF.
MIM you mentioned the new package for Mexico. Have you looked much at it? As I understand it the heavy focus is on counterterrorism, anti-corruption and counter narcotics efforts. The southern border of Mexico is a real counterterrorism concern for us. Here’s a thought for you too, if we help Mexico develop, won’t that help us ultimately with the border issues? I mean if Mexico can develop to the point that it too has good jobs to offer its citizenry, why would want to immigrate to the US for jobs?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – The media’s far left leaning is no myth and has been substantiated with some regularity (even by researchers out to disprove it). The members of the media hold positions – on all issues of any controversy (pick one, abortion, AA, the war, homosexual conduct or “marriage”, etc.) – that are well to the left of center, and they are alarmingly uniform in this bias to the left. I am stunned that you even try to float the idea that this is a myth.
Report comment to moderator
KRM: Read Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media? and see if you still honestly think so.
It’s questionable whether reporters as a group tend to lean left in their personal views — the research I’ve seen hasn’t been that solid — but even if it is true, what matters is whether they do their job well. Reporters who are good professionals will report fairly no matter what their personal feelings are, and that’s the real test.
Also, I object to the label you use, “far left,” or its equivalent, “extreme left.” People who want to demonize the other side will often characterize even moderate views as “extreme.” The “far left” in America might be the Noam Chomsky/Ward Churchill left. The Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton left is well in the mainstream of liberal half of the country.
If reporters do hold views that are in that liberal mainstream, they may be politically left-wing, but they are not “far left,” no more than John McCain is “far right.”
Report comment to moderator
KRM —
Other than the war, each issue you mentioned is social. In economic issues, the media is consistently right wing. If anything the media is consistently “classically liberal” in that the individual (including corporations ie their boss) should be free from the constraints of the state, both socially and economically.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!